>
> I am working on the lessons from hi.is. In lesson 2, part of the
> exercise is to translate:
>
> Óláfr á bát. Hann heitir Ormr.
>
> I am thinking that it is supposed to be:
>
> Olaf owns a boat. It is called Ormr.

That's right.

> But the original uses the pronoun "hann," where I'm thinking it
> should be "þat." Otherwise, wouldn't it be, "he is called Ormr?"

In Old Norse, as in many modern European languages, all nouns
including inanimate objects have what's known as grammatical gender.
In Old Norse, there are three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter.
Each noun belongs to one of these three categories. Which category a
noun belongs to can seem quite arbitrary from an English point of
view. In English, we tend to only use masculine or feminine pronouns
to refer to a thing if we want (optionally) to personify it, as when
people call a ship "she". But in Old Norse it's just an inherent part
of the grammar and depends on the history of the word, rather than
being a deliberate personification of the object as male or female.
It's as much a part of the rules of the language as the distinction
between singular and plural.

The noun 'bátr' (meaning "boat") happens to be masculine, and so it's
grammatically correct that a masculine pronoun is used to refer to it.
On the other hand, 'skip' (meaning "ship") is neuter, so 'þat' would
be used to refer to "skip", and 'skeið', a type of warship, is
feminine, so that would be referred to with feminine pronouns.

Sæl Patricia! Looks like you were in a bit of a rush there, check færðr again. Kveðja, Haukur

Message 6 of 14
, Jan 6, 2009

0 Attachment

Sæl Patricia!

Looks like you were in a bit of a rush there, check 'færðr' again.

Kveðja,
Haukur

> Saell Haukur
> That looks interesting - may I join in
>
> "And a little after that Gautrek begot a child with his wife, and he was a
> boy-child
> and was the father of a king" -
> or does it mean that he was fathered by a king
>
> I wonder would they make a point of that - Mrs. Gautrek - would not have
> been
> unfaithful - ?? not even with a king
> I am just home from College and just noticed this I like to take part when
> I
> can
> Kveðja
> Patricia
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Haukur Þorgeirsson
> Date: 06/01/2009 14:27:03
> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [norse_course] Lesson question
>
> Indeed. But here's a tricky little passage from Hrólfs saga
> Gautrekssonar,
> describing the birth of the eponymous hero:
>
> "Ok eigi miklu síðar getr Gautrekr barn við konu sinni. Þat var sveinbarn
> ok var færðr konungi."
>
> What do you make of that?
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
>
>> bátr (boat) is, grammatically, a masculine noun. Any pronoun that
>> refers
>> to bátr must also be, grammatically, masculine, in all cases, and both
>> singular and plural. Hence, hann (nominative masculine singular) is
>> here
>> used to refer to it, ie hann may be translated into English as either
>> he or it depending on whether the noun to which it refers, while
>> grammatically masculine, is in the real world masculine or genderless.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Alan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com]
>> On Behalf Of commander_dagda
>> Sent: Monday, 5 January 2009 3:12 PM
>> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [norse_course] Lesson question
>>
>> I am working on the lessons from hi.is. In lesson 2, part of the
>> exercise is to translate:
>>
>> Óláfr á bát. Hann heitir Ormr.
>>
>> I am thinking that it is supposed to be:
>>
>> Olaf owns a boat. It is called Ormr.
>>
>> But the original uses the pronoun "hann," where I'm thinking it
>> should be "þat." Otherwise, wouldn't it be, "he is called Ormr?"
>>
>> Óláfr á bát. "þat" heitir Ormr.
>>
>> Nominative case: I you he she it
>> Accusative case: me you him her it
>>
>> Nominative case: ek þú hann hon þat
>> Accusative case: mik þik hann hana þat
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1870 - Release Date:
>> 1/5/2009 9:44 AM
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
>
> Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
>
> To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
>
> norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Patti (Wilson)

OOooops - yes I checked Zoega and Cleasby and there is something like being
brought to the King in Zoega I believe it seems to suggest to me the little boy

Message 7 of 14
, Jan 6, 2009

0 Attachment

OOooops - yes I checked Zoega and Cleasby and there is something like being brought to the King

in Zoega I believe it seems to suggest to me the little boy was given to the King.

Perhaps given to serve the king at an early age - the other word færi refers to the condition of the road

i.e. the Way I believe Haukur you can blame my keeness to join in - I have missed my work with the Group and

Right, brought to the king. What I wanted to draw attention to is that sveinbarn is a neuter noun but the adjective færðr is in the masculine form so it

Message 8 of 14
, Jan 6, 2009

0 Attachment

Right, brought to the king. What I wanted to draw attention to is that
'sveinbarn' is a neuter noun but the adjective 'færðr' is in the masculine
form so it would seem that in this case the natural gender has overridden
the grammatical one.

Kveðja,
Haukur

> OOooops - yes I checked Zoega and Cleasby and there is something like
> being
> brought to the King
> in Zoega I believe it seems to suggest to me the little boy was given to
> the King.
> Perhaps given to serve the king at an early age - the other word færi
> refers
> to the condition of the road
> i.e. the Way I believe Haukur you can blame my keeness to join in - I
> have
> missed my work with the Group and
> hope to be back shortly
> Kveðja
> Patricia
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Haukur Þorgeirsson
> Date: 06/01/2009 14:56:46
> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [norse_course] Lesson question
>
> Sæl Patricia!
>
> Looks like you were in a bit of a rush there, check 'færðr' again.
>
> Kveðja,
> Haukur
>
>
>> Saell Haukur
>> That looks interesting - may I join in
>>
>> "And a little after that Gautrek begot a child with his wife, and he was
>> a
>> boy-child
>> and was the father of a king" -
>> or does it mean that he was fathered by a king
>>
>> I wonder would they make a point of that - Mrs. Gautrek - would not
>> have
>> been
>> unfaithful - ?? not even with a king
>> I am just home from College and just noticed this I like to take part
>> when
>> I
>> can
>> Kveðja
>> Patricia
>>
>> -------Original Message-------
>>
>> From: Haukur Þorgeirsson
>> Date: 06/01/2009 14:27:03
>> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [norse_course] Lesson question
>>
>> Indeed. But here's a tricky little passage from Hrólfs saga
>> Gautrekssonar,
>> describing the birth of the eponymous hero:
>>
>> "Ok eigi miklu síðar getr Gautrekr barn við konu sinni. Þat var
>> sveinbarn
>> ok var færðr konungi."
>>
>> What do you make of that?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Haukur
>>
>>
>>> bátr (boat) is, grammatically, a masculine noun. Any pronoun that
>>> refers
>>> to bátr must also be, grammatically, masculine, in all cases, and both
>>> singular and plural. Hence, hann (nominative masculine singular) is
>>> here
>>> used to refer to it, ie hann may be translated into English as
>>> either
>>> he or it depending on whether the noun to which it refers, while
>>> grammatically masculine, is in the real world masculine or genderless.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
>>> [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com]
>>> On Behalf Of commander_dagda
>>> Sent: Monday, 5 January 2009 3:12 PM
>>> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [norse_course] Lesson question
>>>
>>> I am working on the lessons from hi.is. In lesson 2, part of the
>>> exercise is to translate:
>>>
>>> Óláfr á bát. Hann heitir Ormr.
>>>
>>> I am thinking that it is supposed to be:
>>>
>>> Olaf owns a boat. It is called Ormr.
>>>
>>> But the original uses the pronoun "hann," where I'm thinking it
>>> should be "þat." Otherwise, wouldn't it be, "he is called Ormr?"
>>>
>>> Óláfr á bát. "þat" heitir Ormr.
>>>
>>> Nominative case: I you he she it
>>> Accusative case: me you him her it
>>>
>>> Nominative case: ek þú hann hon þat
>>> Accusative case: mik þik hann hana þat
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1870 - Release Date:
>>> 1/5/2009 9:44 AM
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
>>
>> Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
>>
>> To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
>>
>> norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
>
> Homepage: http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/
>
> To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
>
> norse_course-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Patti (Wilson)

Well there you are then Haukur - I have missed my work with the Group so
much and become out of practice - it was a good exercise and I thank you for the

Message 9 of 14
, Jan 6, 2009

0 Attachment

Well there you are then Haukur - I have missed my work with the Group so much

and become out of practice - it was a good exercise and I thank you for the

Indeed, but couldn’t this just be an example of a grammatical slip by the author or amanuensis? Or is that too simple an explanation? For someone who’s

Message 10 of 14
, Jan 7, 2009

0 Attachment

Haukur Þorgeirsson

Indeed, there are some tricky issues here. Let s take some examples from the modern language. We have a common colloquial word for a child, krakki ,

Message 11 of 14
, Jan 7, 2009

0 Attachment

Indeed, there are some tricky issues here. Let's take some examples from
the modern language. We have a common colloquial word for a child,
'krakki', corresponding approximately to 'kid'. Now, this is a masculine
word but it can be applied to children of both sexes. Let's imagine a
situation with a group with children of both sexes - the kids are here and
they're hungry. How would I say that? If I do it with two sentences it may
go something like this:

Some pedants might insist that #1 is the only correct way but I think #2
is perfectly acceptable and something many people would say. As long as I
get to start a new sentence I feel free to revert to the natural gender.
But what if I get less of a break?

I think #3 is a borderline sentence and #4 is probably not acceptable
while #5 is even less acceptable.

While English doesn't have grammatical gender which can be at odds with
natural gender I think something similar may be seen in that language. It
certainly has grammatical number and there's ample opportunity for that to
be at odds with the natural number. Consider these examples:

#1 The Government is minded to support the amendment.
#2 The Government are minded to support the amendment.

I understand #1 is acceptable for all English speakers but #2 is chiefly
acceptable in Britain. A government is an abstract entity but it's also a
group of people. The latter conception can, at least in British English,
lead to a natural plural overriding the grammatical singular. Isn't that
somewhat similar to the gender quandary?

Regards,
Haukur

> Indeed, but couldnt this just be an example of a grammatical slip by
> the author or amanuensis? Or is that too simple an explanation? For
> someone whos native language is English and for whom the concept of
> grammatical gender is a complete novelty, such a slip would seem
> perfectly natural. But I am wondering whether inadvertant use of natural
> gender would be possible to an Icelander, for whom thinking in terms of
> grammatical gender would seem practically inherent. Or do you really
> have to think about it?
>
> Kveðja
> Alan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: norse_course@yahoogroups.com [mailto:norse_course@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Haukur Þorgeirsson
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2009 2:38 AM
> To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [norse_course] Lesson question
>
> Right, brought to the king. What I wanted to draw attention to is that
> 'sveinbarn' is a neuter noun but the adjective 'færðr' is in the
> masculine
> form so it would seem that in this case the natural gender has
> overridden
> the grammatical one.
>
> Kveðja,
> Haukur
>
>> OOooops - yes I checked Zoega and Cleasby and there is something like
>> being
>> brought to the King
>> in Zoega I believe it seems to suggest to me the little boy was given
> to
>> the King.
>> Perhaps given to serve the king at an early age - the other word færi
>> refers
>> to the condition of the road
>> i.e. the Way I believe Haukur you can blame my keeness to join in - I
>> have
>> missed my work with the Group and
>> hope to be back shortly
>> Kveðja
>> Patricia
>>
>> -------Original Message-------
>>
>> From: Haukur Þorgeirsson
>> Date: 06/01/2009 14:56:46
>> To: norse_course@ <mailto:norse_course%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [norse_course] Lesson question
>>
>> Sæl Patricia!
>>
>> Looks like you were in a bit of a rush there, check 'færðr' again.
>>
>> Kveðja,
>> Haukur
>>
>>
>>> Saell Haukur
>>> That looks interesting - may I join in
>>>
>>> "And a little after that Gautrek begot a child with his wife, and he
> was
>>> a
>>> boy-child
>>> and was the father of a king" -
>>> or does it mean that he was fathered by a king
>>>
>>> I wonder would they make a point of that - Mrs. Gautrek - would not
>>> have
>>> been
>>> unfaithful - ?? not even with a king
>>> I am just home from College and just noticed this I like to take part
>>> when
>>> I
>>> can
>>> Kveðja
>>> Patricia
>>>
>>> -------Original Message-------
>>>
>>> From: Haukur Þorgeirsson
>>> Date: 06/01/2009 14:27:03
>>> To: norse_course@ <mailto:norse_course%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: RE: [norse_course] Lesson question
>>>
>>> Indeed. But here's a tricky little passage from Hrólfs saga
>>> Gautrekssonar,
>>> describing the birth of the eponymous hero:
>>>
>>> "Ok eigi miklu síðar getr Gautrekr barn við konu sinni. Þat var
>>> sveinbarn
>>> ok var færðr konungi."
>>>
>>> What do you make of that?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Haukur
>>>
>>>
>>>> bátr (boat) is, grammatically, a masculine noun. Any pronoun that
>>>> refers
>>>> to bátr must also be, grammatically, masculine, in all cases, and
> both
>>>> singular and plural. Hence, hann (nominative masculine singular) is
>>>> here
>>>> used to refer to it, ie hann may be translated into English as
>>>> either
>>>> he or it depending on whether the noun to which it refers, while
>>>> grammatically masculine, is in the real world masculine or
> genderless.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: norse_course@ <mailto:norse_course%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
>>>> [mailto:norse_course@ <mailto:norse_course%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com]
>>>> On Behalf Of commander_dagda
>>>> Sent: Monday, 5 January 2009 3:12 PM
>>>> To: norse_course@ <mailto:norse_course%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
>>>> Subject: [norse_course] Lesson question
>>>>
>>>> I am working on the lessons from hi.is. In lesson 2, part of the
>>>> exercise is to translate:
>>>>
>>>> Óláfr á bát. Hann heitir Ormr.
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking that it is supposed to be:
>>>>
>>>> Olaf owns a boat. It is called Ormr.
>>>>
>>>> But the original uses the pronoun "hann," where I'm thinking it
>>>> should be "þat." Otherwise, wouldn't it be, "he is called Ormr?"
>>>>
>>>> Óláfr á bát. "þat" heitir Ormr.
>>>>
>>>> Nominative case: I you he she it
>>>> Accusative case: me you him her it
>>>>
>>>> Nominative case: ek þú hann hon þat
>>>> Accusative case: mik þik hann hana þat
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg <http://www.avg.com> com
>>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1870 - Release Date:
>>>> 1/5/2009 9:44 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
>>>
>>> Homepage: http://www.hi <http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/>
> is/~haukurth/norse/
>>>
>>> To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
>>>
>>> norse_course-
> <mailto:norse_course-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.comYahoo>
> unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> A Norse funny farm, overrun by smart people.
>>
>> Homepage: http://www.hi <http://www.hi.is/~haukurth/norse/>
> is/~haukurth/norse/
>>
>> To escape from this funny farm try rattling off an e-mail to:
>>
>> norse_course- <mailto:norse_course-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.comYahoo>
> unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.1/1870 - Release Date:
> 1/6/2009 5:16 PM
>
>

llama_nom

#1 The Government is minded to support the amendment. #2 The Government are minded to support the amendment. I can confirm that the latter is an equally

Message 12 of 14
, Jan 7, 2009

0 Attachment

#1 The Government is minded to support the amendment.
#2 The Government are minded to support the amendment.

I can confirm that the latter is an equally acceptable alternative for
me in British English, although #1 might be considered more formally
correct. But I think we'd always use #1 if we were talking about the
government as an institution, rather than as a particular group of people.

#3 The government is our servant.

The police, on the other hand, feels decidedly plural. I wouldn't use
#5, although a quick trawl of Google News suggests that it might be
acceptable in some parts of the English-speaking world (including
India and the Caribbean), at least as an alternative. But either
singular or plural sounds okay to me when a particular police
authority is the subject.

#4 The police have denied these claims.
#5 ??The police has denied these claims.
#6 South Yorkshire Police { has, have } denied these claims.
#7 The police is an institution which enforces the law.

As in the case of the government, in #7, I'd use the singular verb,
because there the police is a more abstract idea, an institution,
rather than a group of people doing something on a specific occasion.

*

Back to Old Norse, there's a curious example in Skáldskaparmál where
neuter singular used in place of masculine plural. I don't know why
that is. It doesn't seem to be a conflict between natural gender and
grammatical gender.

I wonder if it's a similar phenomenon to the English fluctuation
between singular and plural in sentences like the following, #8 being
a colloquial alternative.

#8 there's four of them
#9 there are four of them

Haukur Þorgeirsson

... Yes, I think you could say it s a similar phenomenon. I think in both cases we re dealing with markedness . In English (and other languages) singular is

Message 13 of 14
, Jan 7, 2009

0 Attachment

> Back to Old Norse, there's a curious example in Skáldskaparmál where
> neuter singular used in place of masculine plural. I don't know why
> that is. It doesn't seem to be a conflict between natural gender and
> grammatical gender.
>
> #10 hér er kallat hvalir Viðblinda geltir
> here whales are called Viðblindi's boars
> (Skáldskaparmál 46)
>
> I wonder if it's a similar phenomenon to the English fluctuation
> between singular and plural in sentences like the following, #8 being
> a colloquial alternative.
>
> #8 there's four of them
> #9 there are four of them

Yes, I think you could say it's a similar phenomenon. I think in both
cases we're dealing with 'markedness'. In English (and other languages)
singular is the unmarked number so in some dialects and some contexts it
can be used where plural would technically be called for. I think in Old
Norse the neuter singular of adjectives might similarly be an unmarked
default form.

(Grabbed from a Google search, I haven't checked this down to the
manuscripts or anything like that.)

Compare with this sentence from Sæmundr's Edda:

"Helgi ok Sigrún er kallat at væri endrborin"

This is slightly different, isn't it? We can parse it like this:

"Kallat er at [Helgi ok Sigrún væri endrborin]"

Yet it seems like a short step from this easy-to-parse example to your
hard-to-parse example.

Kveðja,
Haukur

llama_nom

Interesting. The idea of neuter singular as the least marked combination of gender and number ties in with its use for past participles with the auxiliary

Message 14 of 14
, Jan 7, 2009

0 Attachment

Interesting. The idea of neuter singular as the least marked
combination of gender and number ties in with its use for past
participles with the auxiliary 'hafa' to form the perfect tense, and
in the passive with verbs that select dative or genitive.

(1) mönnum varð borgit flestum
"most of the people were saved"

In Gothic too there are a few instances of natural gender or number
winning out over grammatically "correct" forms, as well as scattered
examples of neuter past participles used as a default where another
gender would be expected.

In each of these examples, the Gothic combination of auxiliary verb
and past participle corresponds to a single verb in the Greek
original, although normally when this happens grammatical gender
agreement is observed. In (3), the past participle is separated from
the (feminine) noun by quite a long way, which might have something to
do with it.

Regarding number, Richard Nielsen posted to Old Norse Net a while back
a list of examples of singular verbs used for plural in Swedish
diplomas of the 14th century [http://lists.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0710D&L=ONN&P=R71980&I=-3 ].
Unfortunately the context is missing for some of them, but a lot of
those that do have some context are in relative clauses, in particular
a certain kind of legal formula. I don't know if that's an artefect of
the search method or the nature of the corpus, or a genuine tendency.

(6) Them sum epter komber
"those who come after"

(7) þøm þær æptir comber sum þøm þær nw aer.
"those who come after even as those who now are [living]"

If it is significant that number-agreement occasionally fails in such
contexts in Old Swedish, and not just the first signs of the general
decline of the plural in spoken Swedish, I wonder if it might (at
least sometimes) have something to do with confusion between the
concepts of "each" and "all". "Each" is singular, "all" is plural, but
they often amount to the same thing:

(8) each of those who come(s) after
(9) all of those who come after

Another factor in the case of (8) is the ambiguity over whether the
subject is "each" or "those". Another English example that comes to mind:

(10) {there's, there are } loads/lots of them
(11) { there's, there are } a lot of them

In (10) the first option is just the regular colloquial use of
singular as a default. In (11), the prescriptively erroneous plural
could be motivated by the empatically plural sense of the
grammatically singular noun, but might also be a hypercorrection
formed by analogy with (10).

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.